A householder who complains that his neighbour’s camera covers the entry to and exit from his house has been told to take the grievance to the District Magistrate, who must decide within one month. Disposing of the petition, the Allahabad High Court said Private CCTV Cameras cannot be positioned to interfere with a neighbour’s privacy.
Prayagraj: No private CCTV camera can be installed and positioned so as to interfere with the privacy of a neighbour, the Allahabad High Court has held, disposing of a writ petition by directing the petitioner to approach the District Magistrate, who must decide his application within a month [Yogendra Maurya v. State of U.P. and 7 Others].
The order of October 26, 2026 was passed by a Division Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad, after hearing counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the State.
One sentence on neighbours and privacy
The Bench put its view on the issue plainly:
“In our considered view, no private CCTV camera can be installed and positioned in such a manner as to interfere with the privacy of a neighbour.”
A camera aimed at the doorway
The petitioner, Yogendra Maurya, approached the High Court in Writ C No. 42270 of 2026, aggrieved by the way his neighbour had positioned a CCTV camera.
According to the petition, the camera covered the entry to and exit from his house. He contended that this interfered with the privacy of persons visiting his home or leaving it, and amounted to a violation of privacy.
Left to the District Magistrate
The High Court did not examine the placement of the camera itself and left the factual question to the district administration. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction:
“…we dispose of this petition with a direction to the petitioner to file an application before the District Magistrate concerned. In the event, the petitioner files such an application, the District Magistrate concerned shall consider and decide the same within a period of one month.”
The Bench did not decide whether this particular camera crossed the line. That question now goes to the District Magistrate.
Why the order matters
Home CCTV cameras have become common in Indian neighbourhoods, and disputes over where they point have followed. The order is brief, but it states a clear principle: a person’s interest in securing his own property does not extend to placing a camera so that it watches over a neighbour’s doorway and the people who come and go from it. Privacy, recognised as part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, is engaged even in the space just outside one’s home.
The order is also practical. With a one-month deadline for the District Magistrate, residents facing similar grievances have a quicker administrative route, while the Bench’s observation sets the standard the authority is to apply.
Case Title: Yogendra Maurya v. State of U.P. and 7 Others [Writ C No. 42270 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: October 26, 2026
Appearances: Akhilesh Singh Yadav for the petitioner; Chief Standing Counsel for the State